Sacramento Surgeons Botch Woman's Breast Augmentation, Part 2 of 6
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.
DEFENDANTS HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THEY HAVE A COMPLETE DEFENSE OR THAT ONE OR MORE ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFF'S CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MALPRACTICE CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED
As the Court is aware, a defendant moving for summary judgment must show either that there is a complete defense to the cause of action, or that one or more elements of the cause of action (for medical negligence) cannot be established. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(o)(2). A cause of action cannot be established if the undisputed facts presented by the defendant prove the contrary of plaintiff's allegations as a matter of law. Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1597.
A defendant moving for summary judgment must show it is entitled to judgment with respect to all theories of liability asserted by the plaintiff. Lopez v. Superior Court (Friedman Bros. Inv. Co.) (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 705, 717.
The moving party has the burden of establishing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle that party to a judgment as a matter of law. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(c); Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3rd 153, 169. The moving party's evidence is strictly construed in determining whether an essential element of the claim has been negated.
Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1601. Declarations presented by the moving party are strictly construed (Leyva v. Superior Court (Orange Coast Title Co.) (1985) 164 Cal.App.3rd 462; Orsetti v. City of Fremont (1978) 80 Cal.App.3rd 961), while opposing declarations are construed liberally and need only set forth evidentiary facts supporting merely a possible cause of action (Anderson v. City of Thousand Oaks (1976) 65 Cal.App.2nd 82). (See Part 3 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.